Earning Middle America's revulsion

Mr. Dreher, I'm surprised that you're surprised at this. The last 40 years have seen a number of cultural developments that made this particular scenario just about inevitable:

1) Television has come to dominate our public and private discourses. Being a visual medium, it discourages reason and encourages emotional expression;

2) Since the mid-1960s, our formal education system has been set up to encourage having and demonstrating the correct emotions, self-esteem (the product of emotional engineering) over self-respect (the product of solid attainment) and "sympathy" for those possessing the requisite victim/minority status;

3) At the same time, rigorous intellectual activity---the study of Latin and the hard sciences, for example---has been passed over in favor of multicultural/women's/Black/Chicano "studies", particularly at the college level. This is compounded by the deliberate encouragement of attendance at college over vocational education or real-world employment after high school; far too many young people are steered towards four or more years in an environment of extended adolescence and emotionalism, as opposed to gaining experience and knowledge of the real world;

4) The expansion of central-government power (taxes and "civil rights"/"anti-discrimination" laws, along with the commensurate growth in its ability to distribute perks and privileges. This encourages sub-group solidarity and competition on the political level for privileges ("affirmative action") and unearned income ("entitlements") at the expense of an idea of common citizenship and personal, private-sector initiative;

5) Mass immigration, particularly of persons of non-European descent. This fuels so-called multiculturalism and emphasizes harmful "diversity", as opposed to assimilation into the dominant (English-speaking/British-derived) political and social structure. "Imperialization" is perhaps the proper word for it.

(# 5 is compounded by the central government's current policy of encouraging immigration by the unskilled. Unskilled newcomers generally tend to be more reliant on the State for the necessities of survival and less likely to exercise personal initiative.)

6) Mass advertising deliberately stimulates feelings of envy and materialism among the commoner population as a whole. These emotions can be easily exploited by clever demagogues.

Combine this with a long tradition of political combativeness going back to the days of the (pre-1828) First Republic, and I'm surprised our current state of affairs has taken as long as it has to have emerged.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Ricardo - I assume you're not just feigning ignorance, but that you are actually ignorant of The Atlantic Monthly magazine and its vile repetition of the vile rumors emanating from liberal blogs.

This is a mainstream liberal magazine and it's been a mainstream liberal magazine since 1800-something. This is what American liberalism has become.

Sorry, meant to say the above link to reason.com specifically addresses the approach of Sullivan, and the reaction of Rod, which helped fill in the blanks for me...

I'm almost starting to feel sorry for Obama. He's been forced to distance himself from his many (questionable) public associations, and now, a deranged and venomous press.

It will be interesting to see if he manages to float above it all, not with recycled empty platitudes but through the content of his character. It's as much refining moment for him as it is for Palin.

Would that all of America shared your analytical skills, Rufus, but I suspect they don't. Visceral revulsion toward ones opponent trumps analysis, every time.

Daniel,

Visualize a hand-puppet making the yapping-mouth gesture.

Audiblize the wonk-wonk-wonk-wonk sound of pedants in a *Peanuts* cartoon.

Now you know how most of your posts and all of Barack Obama's speeches strike many if not most of us.

Good day to you, sir.

"Now you know how most of your posts and all of Barack Obama's speeches strike many if not most of us."

That's a funny, snide post. You could be Palin's speechwriter.

None of that changes the fact that "Middle American Revulsion" is a culture war chant that conservatives have been chanting since the '60s. Emails and man-on-the-street conversations a culture warrior has with the people are hardly an indication that "Middle America" is turned off.

Rod spent months attacking and sliming the Obamas. His treatment of Michelle Obama was repulsive and sickening. But that's politics these days. Rod wants a culture war and now he has it. He's wanted to "lock and load" for years, and now he has the chance. He's not repulsed; he's delighted.

1) Television has come to dominate our public and private discourses. Being a visual medium, it discourages reason and encourages emotional expression;

Such was true a generation ago. The primacy of television has been eroding for the last dozen years.

3) At the same time, rigorous intellectual activity---the study of Latin and the hard sciences, for example---has been passed over in favor of multicultural/women's/Black/Chicano "studies", particularly at the college level. This is compounded by the deliberate encouragement of attendance at college over vocational education or real-world employment after high school; far too many young people are steered towards four or more years in an environment of extended adolescence and emotionalism, as opposed to gaining experience and knowledge of the real world;

At the liberal arts college I know best, these programs exist, and one might wager they have aided in distorting and disfiguring faculty hiring by creating slots for identity politicians in the departments concerned with literature, history, and social research. However, the students avoid them. I have seen the figures on the number of majors per graduating class (averaged over a 16 year period) for the advocacy programs at that particular institution ('africana studies', 'women's studies', and 'peace studies') and these sum to less than 2% of the institution's graduates. A couple of other programs that might conceivably be corrupted in this manner corral another 1%. The Classics department at that school has more majors than any of the advocacy programs and about a quarter of the institution's graduates study the natural sciences or mathematics.

One should note in this regard that in American higher education, 39% are following programs in the liberal or fine arts. Most students are in vocational programs of one sort or another. The advocacy programs are bad, but I suspect that cockeyed vocational programs maintained due to guild rules and state certification requirements are a greater problem.

4) The expansion of central-government power (taxes and "civil rights"/"anti-discrimination" laws, along with the commensurate growth in its ability to distribute perks and privileges. This encourages sub-group solidarity and competition on the political level for privileges ("affirmative action") and unearned income ("entitlements") at the expense of an idea of common citizenship and personal, private-sector initiative;

Anti-discrimination law has had a gangrenous effect in education and labor relations and does need containing. However, the change in the balance between state and market as an economic allocator occurred in the period between 1929 and 1955. It is not a novelty, and there has been a modest retreat in recent decades in the willingness of the state to regulate commercial transactions (in transportation and broadcasting, &c.). Ralph Nader has been an unhappy man for a reason.

5) Mass immigration, particularly of persons of non-European descent. This fuels so-called multiculturalism and emphasizes harmful "diversity", as opposed to assimilation into the dominant (English-speaking/British-derived) political and social structure. "Imperialization" is perhaps the proper word for it.

The effects of immigration on the political culture are, I would submit to you, rather more modest than they were in era when urban machines were under construction. I will suggest that the problem immigration poses is that immigrants are conscripted as foot-soldiers in cultural battles being waged by native elites and counter-elites. The chattering classes are the main problems, not the immigrants.

(# 5 is compounded by the central government's current policy of encouraging immigration by the unskilled. Unskilled newcomers generally tend to be more reliant on the State for the necessities of survival and less likely to exercise personal initiative.)

Personal initiative, specific skills, and general intelligence are distinct characteristics which should not be confounded. In any case, federal immigration policy encourages family re-unification. The prevalence of unskilled people in the legal and illegal immigration pool is a condition of exterior origin that the government has neglected to address effectively but did not create. Also, immigrants grow dependant on doles because it is allowed by legislatures and/or insisted upon by the judiciary. Change policy and rein in the courts.

6) Mass advertising deliberately stimulates feelings of envy and materialism among the commoner population as a whole. These emotions can be easily exploited by clever demagogues.

Commoners? Orders of clergy, nobility, burgesses, and peasants (never much of a social reality here) were formally discontinued 225 years ago. The legal caste distinction was partially expunged after the civil war, with the remainder excised by 1965.

In 1955, about a third of the private-sector workforce were members of trade and industrial unions. At this time, that proportion is now 9%. To a great extent, unions have morphed into pressure groups for public employees, and union members often think of them not a fraternities for collective action but as professional bureaux like law firms. Also, if I am not mistaken, most of the working-class outside of the black and mestizo minorities votes against the functionally social-democratic party in this country. The political parties tend to be expressions of cultural and psychological dispensations more than social classes. The economic sectors mobilized by the Democratic Party are of the state-dependant population, not the wage-earner population.

Oh, that and mindless jingoism against an ill-defined enemy, which is just culture war as applied to foreign policy.

At present, the United States has troops in Iraq (principal adversary al-Qaeda and allies) and Afghanistan (principal adversary al-Qaeda and allies). Evidently, for our sophisticates, these battles are a G.O.P. wedge issue. Certain sorts of remarks do reveal what's under the rock of our political culture

I want to second the idea, which should appeal to any fair minded person, that sources be quoted for supposed invective. Last week, I read a post by Meghan McArdle in which she accused unnamed writers of implying or having a subtext of believing that Bristol Palin should have an abortion, without giving any evidence.

Now, if you're going to claim that something is implied or there is a subtext, you need to show readers the evidence. I didn't see any evidence in the Cohen piece either. This practice is rampant and is common across the political spectrum.

Any fair minded person should want evidence and demand more than straw man arguments. If you claim that there's a study supporting your position, you should cite it, etc.

Every Democrat in my own family and group of friends is pro-choice, but against abortion personally. Surely there are others.

Nick Cohen has a position he's trying to argue for. He's not an unbiased observer. He needs to justify his arguments.

There are lots of people like me, who are in the middle, basically mild conservatives and timid libertarians.

As for Gov. Palin, she's going to get, just like Sen. Obama, a lot of scrutiny because she is relatively unknown. How hard is that to understand? I can't tell what I think about her yet because there's so much conflicting information which needs to be sorted out before I make a judgment about her. It took me months to come to respect Sen. Obama, and I might feel the same way about Gov. Palin when I get to know her better.

Come on. I am the only person who wants to wait and see how people react and what they say before making a decision about their qualifications to be president? Is rushing to judgment a great virtue, or considered judgment? Is evidence important, or strength of conviction?

And is it so hard to give people the benefit of the doubt and try and understand them?

I wouldn't read this blog if I didn't believe that many people are like me and can find political friends from a broad range of the political spectrum.

You don't think that the economy being in recession might have a wee bit something to do with the election? Or anything else for that matter.

The formal defition of 'recession' requires two quarters without economic growth. That has not yet happened.

However, whether Sarah Palin's treatment by the MSM upset you or not, at the end of the day Sarah Palin is a Republican, who is part of a Republican party that espouses Republican ideas. Republicans, their party, and their ideas are extremely unpopular.

The last time I checked, the approval rating for the Congress of the United States was approching the single digits; the party with a majority in both houses thereof is...

I will vote for Mccain knowing full well there will be things in his polices I will not like-continued interbetionist lunacy with our troops acting as global cops and more government programs (as McCain proposed in his speech about "job retraining")that accomplish nothing but spend mroe tax dollars. Mccain has always, as with Mccain-Feingold, Mccain-Kennedy, the Group of 14, etc. tried to DO SOMETHING, when simply having the government do it's job would have been enough. Instead he embraces complicated and unworkable legislative schemes that only worsen the mischief. As in Mccain-Kennedy,triggers for federal action would have required governors of border states "certifying" things, whcih is an invitation to nonsense.Why not simply enforce the border? Mccain-Feingold created a complicated framework when instead federally-supervised immediate disclosure via the internet would've worked better. Want to take $ 1 million from George Soros or Satan-fine, but everyone will know as much tommorrow morning.

Further, Mccain's worst moments duyring the campaign have been discussing fed money policies in the debate in response to ROn Paul's query of him, and saying he hadn't much thought about the economy. Still, better to have a guy admit he doesn't yet undertand something than to have Obama come in and try to bring back the Carter Error with wacky spending plans and pie-in-the-sky idea about energy. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE OIL FREE IN 10 YEARS. Wishing it so ins't going to make it so. And what the hell does a "community organizer" know about energy, say, compared to the governor of the state that provides us with 25% of our energy?

Yet knowing Mccain's failings, I'll vote for his as the lesser of evils. And because he at least saw something great in Palin that we all have seen for ourselves. ANd make no mistake-the MSM and Dems are scared to hell of Governor Palin. This is a Republican who has raised a family, held a union job , run a business and has never darkened the door of any country club. How do you claim to stand for working middle class people and attack her?

Hello whiny, perpetually offended martyrs. Chew on this:

You know, Richard, we do not always see ourselves as other do.

What do social conservatives think they're getting from the Republican coalition?

I hope this doesn't sound sarcastic. I'm asking this seriously. I am not a social conservative, but I see our culture swirling around the drain. Preschoolers treated as nothing but a marketing demographic. Violence as an indicator of coolness. Pornography everywhere. The sense of grievance that predominates on all sides. Sidewalks full of people in t-shirts full of profanity.

I'm not asking what you hope you'll get in the future. I'm asking what you've gotten. What do you have to show for it right now?

I ask this because it's obvious that other coalition members have gotten what they wanted. Tax-haters have gotten their tax cuts (no matter what else the government is doing). Libertarians have gotten their deregulation. Neocons have gotten their wars. Big businesses have gotten their exemptions and subsidies written into the tax code.

Social conservatives could be making common cause with someone like me. Instead, there's this rush to embrace Sarah Palin because "she's one of us". My goodness. Sarah Palin is nothing but a less-qualified George W. Bush. And George W. Bush has been a disaster.

I'm sure it's obvious that I think you're being played.

But maybe I just don't see what you're getting. Maybe you're getting a lot.

What is it?

Damn right it's a culture war. I am SO sick of being sneered at by the likes of Barack and Michelle Obummer, Jeremiah Wrong, and the Daily KOokS.

Am I bitter, as I "cling to my guns and my religion"? Yes, but not about the failure of government to make me taller, smarter, richer, and grow my hair back. I'm bitter about the sneering contempt for me and mine that oozes and drips from our (would-be) lords and masters on the political left, who treat us like inbred, wife-beating rednecks, and then wonder "What's the Matter with Kansas?".

The left's attacks on Gov. Palin are the last straw. I will never support any liberal for any office at any level of government as long as I live.

The idea that everything a person finds personally immoral should be a crime is preposterous. By that reasoning, if I'm a vegetarian for religious reasons, I should be for the prohibition of people eating meat.

It is also unfair to assume that everyone sees abortion in the same way. A person can be against it, but not hold to the Catholic position, for example.

Once again, is it so hard to be fair? You might want to actually hear these people's views and why they feel the way they do before judging their arguments. They owe you the same courtesy.

I don't want to deflect the discussion from the current post. I'm just asking people to be fair.

Sarah Palin lap-dancing? There's a fantasy run amok. Maybe twenty years ago she'd have looked ravishing entwined around a stripper pole, but now?

Though I think she'd still look pretty good by the opalescent glow of an arctic moon around the old ice-fishing hole.

George Sorwell wrote: "What do social conservatives think they're getting from the Republican coalition?"

I reply that we've gotten Supreme Court justices that try to interpret the Constitution as it is written, and not just use it as an license to legislate from the bench.

Tax-haters have gotten their tax cuts (no matter what else the government is doing)

The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product has seen only modest flux in the last 50-odd years. We pay now or later.

Libertarians have gotten their deregulation.

In a selection of sectors (e.g. transportation, broadcasting, banking). The relative size of the state sector and the role of the state in capital allocation remains such that they are far short their goals. (Or, rather, those not obsessed with the drug laws remain far short. The position of those who are so obsessed has deteriorated in the last thirty years).

Neocons have gotten their wars.

External events have a way of intruding

Big businesses have gotten their exemptions and subsidies written into the tax code.

Politically connected business sectors (e.g. oil and real estate, not to mention the farm lobby) have gotten them, at the expense, among others, of the remaining sectors.

Not coming down on any side here, but the conservatives / some Christians learned the whole cultural martyr spiel from the more traditional professional victim classes. "Hey, it works for them! Why can't we get stuff when we whine too?" Perhaps not the noblest and best strategy for them (or anyone, for that matter), but here we are

Richard;

Since you're so concerned about lying ("This is a %49/%49 country and the only thing that matters is the %2 who have the sense to occasionally realize when they are being lied to"), would you care to rethink your previous post concerning Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

"Hello martyrs, the McCain/Bush axis has managed almost destroy the housing market making the one asset that defines prosperity for most Americans worth less and less as each day passes . . . So, please by all means give them four more years to continue wrecking the economy as they aren't quite done yet: Treasury takes over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"?

Uh, I hate to tell you, but the former head of Fannie Mae was one Franklin Raines. Mr. Raines was forced out in 2004 because he padded the books so he and other Fannie Mae executives could pocket huge bonuses. Mr. Raines was Bill Clinton's budget director. Or what about Jamie Gorelick, Clinton's former Deputy Attorney General? Ms. Gorelick, even though she had zero experience in finance, was appointed as Fannie Mae's vice-chairman in 1997 and earned $26 million through 2003. Now I may not be too smart but I fail to see a connection with Fannie Mae's financial problems to the "McCain/Bush axis" but I sure see a big connection to the Democrats. So I don't think anyone is lying to me - other than you, Richard.

>Now I may not be too smart

So basically you're telling me that after eight years of being president George Bush was unable to make any reforms in this agency and in fact loosened the regulations that were in place leading to this implosion?

That McCain learned nothing from being part of the Keating Five, and did nothing to reform this agency which the taxpayers are now bailing out?

And that it's not really George Bush and a Republican administration in charge at the moment of one of the biggest financial collapses since the Great Depression?

In short, it's all Bill Clinton's fault.

The claims some are making here that economic concerns are a reason to vote *for* Obama instead of *against* him and that the Fannie-and-Freddie crisis indicates that we should give the Democratic party *more* sway over our economy rather than *less* would be risible to the point of doing bodily harm to the one provoked to laughter if they were not also so frightening, so indicative of an absence of even the most basic threshold of economic literacy as to sober up anyone informed enough on economic subjects as to be inclined to laugh.

And I say that in full cognizance of how little John McCain is informed on economic issues -- though he at least should be given some credit for the virtue of knowing what he doesn't know, a virtue that the talented Mr. Obama so far has yet to show on this or on any other front, though he is in line to get schooled, one way or another, very soon -- to take a trip to what one might call The Principles Office to meet or rather to be met by "the board of eduction" across his rear end, on or just after November 4.

Any voters thinking of voting for John McCain
should go to the web site:
www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com

I suggest that they view all of the videos, especially the video titled:
"1992 Senate Select Committee on POW'MIAs: The McCain Factor."

Notice that these are not Liberal Democrats speaking about John McCain, but rather very Conservative Republicans.

I am still dumbfounded by the idea that liberal "journalists" have spread the rumor about Sarah Palin's baby not being hers, etc.

If Rod would care to argue that his friend Andrew is not, in fact, a "journalist", then you might have a point. But he won't, because you can't argue that someone with a regular byline in the Atlantic or the Times of London isn't, and neither can Rod.

By the way, Sully not only hasn't apologized for spreading the "baby switch" lie, he's doubling down on Palin to an absolutely pathetic degree: comparing her with a bipolar recluse that his now party of choice nominated for Veep thirty-six years ago.

Even I'm worried something is dreadfully wrong with him. Perhaps the last t-cell count came back with some bad trend lines.

I love how you rightists are all up in arms about what some unnamed bloggers on Daily Kos, Andrew Sullivan (sorry guys he ain't a liberal) and the ever present buy somehow never documented "liberal media" are saying about Palin.

Funny how whenever Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage spouts soemthing offensive you all seem to defend the Republicans and say stuff "like what some random person says doesn't represent Bush, or McCain or whoever" and so on and so on.

Personally I'm only concerend about what the Obama Cmapaign and their desgnated spokespeople say and vice versa for McCain and his campaign. Otherwise you ned up ina race trying to find the most extreme unhinged supporters on eahc side, is that really where we wnat to go?

What I see is McCain and Palin blatantly lying about her record on a daily basis (even trivial stuff like how she sold a plane, it is just 2nd nature for them now). I see Pallin as a generic right wing republican with a paper thin record who has been elevated way beyond her talent level. SHe does a great job at delivering a generic right wing attack speech. She does a greta job lying while keepign a smile on her face. Other than that I haven't seen anything special. I see she is still unwilling to do even an interview on Fox. It is now 9 days and they say she won't be doing interviews anytime soon. As unhinged as he can be Sullivan does do some reporting, he has noted that Eagleton waited 10 days, no other VP since has gone more than a few days without some sort of Q&A availablity. What are they afraid of? If she is really this wonderfully talented politican who is ready to be president if anything happens to McCain she shoudl certainly be able to handle a press conference.

Rod I end up avoiding your blog for months at a time and occasionally come back becasue you do have intersting things to say on a lot of topics. I think ultimeatly what turns me off is your stunning lack of any self awareness about your own biases and hypocracy.

Richard Bottoms,

I would rather drink a glass of cod-liver oil than have a beer with John McCain or any other politician.

If you prefer a President who not only knows nothing about the economy -- and most else about which a president should know -- but also fails to *recognize* how little he knows, then be my guest and vote for BHO.

Have a glass of white wine with him, in fact -- my treat, so long as I don't have to come.

PS: I voted neither time I had the chance for George W. Bush, and I consider my opposition now to BHO entirely consistent with that previous stance -- a stance which you ought to pay more heed, given my record picking ponies --and especially picking out the nags headed for the dog-food can -- more wisely than most. Trust me when I say that BHO's got ninety-nine problems already, and a pit-bull from Alaska is just one mo'.

I don't hate GWB, the person. I hate the direction he took this country. I hate that everything he says I have to wonder, is that true? I hate that he didn't use 9-11 to unite us in a common set of goals, instead he used it to secure election for himself and his party. I hate that he and his people preached competence and gave us the worst mismanagement of government at every level. I hate that he fears science and tries to obscure the truth because it doesn't match his policy decisions. I hate that he exploited American's fears of the "other" to further his own political agenda. But I don't hate him -- that would be a waste of time. I suspect that deep down most people who will vote D in November are like me. I think too that when the country voted against a substantially more impressive performance by the last Democratic administration it was because people didn't hate Clinton, it was because they were embarrassed by his conduct. Same sort of thing, I think.

Sigaliris wrote: Yes, Carey J. "Damn right it's a culture war." It's a culture war of the rich against the poor--business as usual, that is. I wonder which side your God is on.

I respond: If your beef with Gov. Palin is about her "wealth", why aren't you and your lot attacking her opulent lifestyle? Because she doesn't LIVE an opulent lifestyle? She got rid of the governors' private jet and personal chef. She drives herself to work. She got a $1200 rebate for every Alaska taxpayer. $1200 means a lot more to someone making under $20,000 than it does to someone making over $100,000. BTW, her approval rating among Alaskans is in the mid-80s. I don't think it would be anywhere near that high if she were screwing up Alaska's economy.

The left has attacked her on cultural issues because she is what they hate (and fear) most: a successful woman who loves children, had a bunch of them, and lives up to her pro-life views even it's inconvenient. They see her very existence as a reproach to their "sophisticated" viewpoint.

BTW, her approval rating among Alaskans is in the mid-80s.

Actually, in mid-July it was around 64 after the Troopergate story began to unfold. Like her opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere and selling the state plan on Ebay, her approval ratings are a bit of a half-truth.

Anyway, I was at a dinner on Friday in the Virginia exurbs of Washington, D.C. These are purple areas of Virginia where Jim Webb solidified his victory to the Senate. This should be McCain country because they are suspicious of Democrats and like pro-Defense guys.

When the issue of the conventions came up, a number of people who said they were leaning towards McCain said the Palin picked changed their mind and that they were towards Obama. Each person cited the Palin pick as evidence that he wasn't in control and that they questioned whether he was really all that indpendent.

One woman--a SAHM who homeschools, btw--said that she found the Palin pick insulting and said that it proved McCain could no longer be seen as a moderate. As much as she hated the "liberal elite"--her words--she said she disliked the social conservatives in the GOP even more. She said they were divisive and were harming the country. She said she finds the Christian homseschoolers to be intolerant and "scary."

Now, this is just a single conversation. But this election isn't going to be won in Colorado Springs or Appalachia. It's going to be won in the exurbs of Washington, D.C., in the suburbs of Columbus and Pittsburgh and Detroit. Being able to dress a moose isn't all that impressive to soccer moms and dads in suburban Columbus and fanning a culture war is seen as a negative.

Richard Bottoms,

The fact that you can't perceive metaphor or irony or wit, coupled with the fact that you seem to be unable to muster even an ill-informed defense of Obama's economic policies, to say nothing of the fact that it is you -- not I -- who have been reduced to hysterical screeching on abortion and homosexuality -- all these things speak volumes about your support for BHO, support which is this year's illustration of P. T. Barnum's dictum -- as if any one but you of the two of us needed some.

How about a small break from the nastiness for a return to the subject of Mr. Dreher's post? Two articles in support of his thesis:

The New York Times continues to flame the Palin pick.

One professor thinks the Palin "no show" on talk-shows is just savvy celebrity stewardship, not fear.

Back to the "no, YOU'RE stupid" combox tennis match...

>The fact that you can't perceive metaphor or irony or wit,

There would have to be some irony or wit on display first wouldn't you say? What I do hear is screeching about how we hate Sarah because she didn't kill her baby and other such nonsense.

We do despise the platforms, policies, and actions under the GOP banner to include working to make rape and incest victims carry the pregnancies to term. We deride quite openly the stupid anti-science pronouncements of Flat Earth carnival barkers pushing the notion that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist.

Here's my defense of Obama's policies: they won't be tilted towards the rich. We used to have a surplus, now we don't. Who was in charge again?

The only thing I would hit fellow Democrats with is how dumb any one of them was if they ever believed John McCain wasn't every bit a part of the GOP machine as George Bush is.

I am tired to death of the whining, self-pitying of Christians who've never really known oppression or suffering for their faith putting US Weekly articles on the same level as the Gulag or something.

Carey J, like many voters you seem to have some trouble disentangling the personal and the political. Palin's personal lifestyle is irrelevant to the effect that the policies of her party would have in continuing to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. Check out David Frum's article in the New York Times magazine. Even he--a rightwing shill if ever there was one--is getting nervous over the (accurate) perception that Republicans couldn't care less about inequalities that cry out to heaven.

But if you really want to talk personal lifestyles, bring it on. Would you care to defend Cindy McCain's $300,000+ outfit, including the 3-carat diamond earrings? How do you think that plays with my homeless friend? Even Palin's lifestyle is not what many would call abstemious. Plenty of families can't afford for their kids to play a sport like hockey that requires equipment and travel. When I was a kid, my parents couldn't afford to buy me ice skates. Plenty of families can't afford a snowmobile--or a nanny, for that matter. Come on--this is like shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe you'd like to switch tactics and talk about POLICY for a change?

One woman--a SAHM who homeschools, btw--said that she found the Palin pick insulting and said that it proved McCain could no longer be seen as a moderate. As much as she hated the "liberal elite"--her words--she said she disliked the social conservatives in the GOP even more. She said they were divisive and were harming the country. She said she finds the Christian homseschoolers to be intolerant and "scary."

Electioneering is not my trade (and I do not imagine it is yours or this dame's in the Virginia exurbs. Nevertheless, I fail to see why Sen. McCain should be particularly responsive to this woman, unless it be your contention that it would be (net) beneficial to him electorally to throw social conservatives under the bus to attempt to attract the unreflective and silly.

Richard Bottoms,

Your PMS -- your Palin Madness Syndrome -- clearly has caused you to pull back your ears and your jowls so very far, so to bear your fangs more fully and more ferally even than you've done before, that by now -- after 10 whole days of this -- you must look like Wile E. Coyote with a face-lift from the worst plastic surgeon in L.A.

As mothers all over the world have said, and wisely so: "Do you want your face to freeze like that?"

Take two -- no make that three -- Motrin and call me in the morning.

By then I will have called Stockholm to nominate you for the Nobel Prize in Economics.

You show some true profundity in your three-sentence disquisition on Obamanomics.

Who knew that raising taxes in the midst of a recession could benefit the poor?

Who knew that deficit spending could bring about a surplus?

Will wonders ever cease from that marvelous young man, Barry O?

Don't answer that, Richard ... I already know.

Beep-beep!

Nevertheless, I fail to see why Sen. McCain should be particularly responsive to this woman, unless it be your contention that it would be (net) beneficial to him electorally to throw social conservatives under the bus to attempt to attract the unreflective and silly.

McCain ignores them at his peril. McCain has a lot of cred as an independent and a maverick. Now, he's just another Republican pandering to his far right wing. Voters like this woman know that.

"Otherwise known as the rest of us."

Har. 22% of the population, tops. You can't win elections pandering to 22% of America (self-described Evangelicals, Mormons, with a smattering of traditionalist Catholics and an orthodox Jewish community in Connecticut) especially when they have some of the highest negatives of any electoral demographic group.

He once called leaders of the social conservative movement "agents of intolerance." Now he calls them and lets them choose the vice president.

He may have solidified his base, but he lost Independents (especially Hillary female voters) in the process.

And you can win elections by pandering to the terminally clueless? What share of the population are they?

My sense is you are probably more in touch with this demographic.

Hey, Art Deco. That was a nice touch there. You want all of America to care truly, madly, deeply that Sarah Palin gave birth to a DS baby. Because that's really heartwarming and we should all care. But if a woman I've known for many years is sick and homeless tonight, you greet this news with disdain as a "sob story." I'm awed by your compassion! I love you, man!! And I'm sure Jesus does too. Christians . . . I've been one all my life, but they continue to puzzle me.

Oh, wait. Maybe you aren't a Christian. Maybe you're one of those libertarian guys who thinks we should solve the abortion problem by letting rich people buy poor people's babies.

Here's a clue: you can disagree with people without being disagreeable. You could say, for instance, "I'm really sorry to hear about your friend. However, I still believe that the problems of unemployment can best by solved by conservative economic solutions." That's the kind of discourse I expect from conservatives, but alas, I'm always being disappointed.

Another clue: anecdotes are useful insofar as they illuminate problems in need of a solution. However, personal information about candidates does not necessarily illustrate the validity of their public policies. Thus: Sarah Palin has five children! Therefore, school vouchers are in the best interests of all children! Or, Sarah Palin does not own a jet plane! Therefore, she would be able to balance the federal budget in just four years! No. It doesn't work that way.

So . . . got anything of substance to say about policy, or do you want to whip out some more of your Palin Pokemon deck?

Sigaliris,

What I want and do not want (in matters of public policy) can be discerned in part by reading what I say here, in other locales like this, and on my own blog. There is a difference between digesting what people say and attributing to them opinions whose ultimate origin is your own imagination.

You instructed the other chap that he was not properly disentangling the personal from the political. I would like to know how offering two vignettes, one about a friend in unfortunate circumstances and one about your husband, and offering them apropos of nothing in particular, amounts to a proper parsing of the personal and the political. It is not your friend and her problems, poignant as they appear, that I regard with disdain. It is today's manifestation of your thought processes.

What is a Pokemon deck?

No, an unexpected court decision cost the town money. The judiciary will do that to you.

No, an unexpected court decision cost the town money. The judiciary will do that to you.

So they had no Plan B is what you're saying?

Seems to be typical GOP management style of the last eight years: Make rosy, assumptions clouded by ideology and be stunned when reality hits you in the face.

Well, this Palin episode has really clarified things for me about the Religious Right. As a committed Orthodox Christian, and one who tries to discern God’s will in my life, I’ve been loathe to automatically assume my righteousness when disagreeing with the RR. But the cultural conservative reaction to the press coverage of the Alaska governor has been beyond the pale. I have seen absolutely nothing in the press to warrant the passions coming from this quarter. It’s very clear to me now that there is a victim complex going on here.

Clearly, the media’s job is to inform. McCain comes along with a VP choice that virtually no one knows. Of course the press is going to try to find out more about her, and they’re going to report what they can. We, the electorate, have a right to know about her. We have to decide if we should vote for her. McCain would be the oldest president ever elected and she may have to replace him. Are we supposed to vote for her without knowing anything? It’s also relevant to ask how McCain chose this unknown person. What can we tell about his judgment? Finally, on the subject of horse races, how she will be accepted by the electorate is also clearly relevant.

Somehow, the media doing its job has been twisted into yet another vicious attack from the anti-Christian MSM on God’s people. Yes, liberal elites truly do run the country!

Sarah Palin, who the RR accepted in an instant, without reservation, is being vetted by the rest of the country. Your expectations have been disappointed, and you get to fall back, once again, on the morally superior position of the persecuted. What a payoff!

I read the NYT article Rod linked to in the post, “Same country, different worlds.” It’s entirely innocuous. John Podhoretz’s reaction could apply equally as well to this Fox News report (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Sep06/0,4670,PalinGays,00.html) about Palin’s church seeking to convert gays. As for the article from the Guardian that Rod starts this post with, where’s the evidence? Pure diatribe.

Go back and reread The Screwtape Letters. The Enemy is at work here, appealing to your pride. For the Religious Right, the fight is all external. How easy it is to ignore the true and truly hard work on ourselves, when we can find another tribe to demonize. And it’s so clear to the rest of us what you’re up to.

The Religious Right has a lot of explaining to do, in my opinion. Where is the mercy? Where is the compassion? Liberals may not know much about Christianity, but they at least know there’s supposed to be some love somewhere in it. How many souls have you lost because of your hypocrisy? How many people could you have attracted over the decades by being Christ-like, when instead you tried to argue and convince and elect, and when that didn’t work, felt sorry for yourselves and victimized and furious? How many unborn have been aborted because of your failure to first take the plank out of your own eye before pointing out the speck in your brother’s? How many pseudo-religious leaders have been enriched, how many corrupt politicians elected, because of their populist/demagogic quasi-Christian rhetoric?

As far as I’m concerned, the Religious Right experiment is over. It was all about controlling other people anyway, making people conform to a conservative social gospel. And at its root, the assumptions that underlay it were: 1) We know better than you, and 2) We can transform the world without first purifying ourselves. (Socialism, anyone?) It was a fallen movement from the start, just another political ideology.

Worse than any other political ideology, because it took Christianity and recast it in strictly American terms: the false idol of American Exceptionalism, where we are the City on a Hill, the New Jerusalem, the Savior of the World, the Right Hand of God. A country that never has to apologize because it is a priori always right. And, of course, always under siege, always with an enemy at the gate. What would America be to the Religious Right without an enemy? Inconceivable. Dissent is heresy, and war is salvation.

Sick of being insulted by liberals? Tell me about it. For my entire adult life, I have worked almost exclusively with conservatives. They hate liberals. Can’t stand ‘em! My family, my friends, my wife. Scum of the earth. Join the club, and welcome to the culture war, where ideology matters more than people. How pleasing to the Devil that we can so easily ignore the Light of Christ in our brothers for the sake of our pet political beliefs! Please refer back to JPL’s post under “Culture War over Palin? Lock and Load.” If you like culture wars, you’ll love the future shown in JPL’s post (the best I’ve ever seen on any blog). And by the way, stop saying that I and my friends want our kids to do drugs and have abortions and hate our country because I don’t know anyone in all of liberal Austin, Texas who thinks anything like that. It’s just as insulting a caricature as those made of religious conservatives, and it’s unworthy of a Christian.

Rod, I truly regret the yuppie conversation you overheard. But you either add or subtract to the culture war. Your comment about “locking and loading” was clearly extreme. I don’t think of you as an extremist, but can you see maybe just a little how some of us are scared of gun owners? After all, if it comes down to it, it’s you who will be killing us. My wife and kids and I will be the victims in that fight.

Here’s what’s lost in the Religious Right’s version of the world: Liberals want you to have the freedom to practice your religion. They are not trying to persecute you! I know you don’t believe it, because that’s not what you’ve been told, but it’s true. Oh, there are always exceptions, and definitely extremes, and some liberals don’t like you because of Christ, but one of the most fundamental values of a liberal is to let people believe what they want, and it’s also a very American value. And let’s all be honest with ourselves, those who want to legislate religious values are guilty of wanting to use the power of the government to enforce matters of conscience. (Caveat: abortion is murder and a civil rights issue, not a matter of conscience.) If you want to talk about school prayer, I’ll tell you that at no public school is your child prohibited from praying. Organized public prayer is a different issue, but I for one don’t want my kids praying about the Pope, or Joseph Smith, or Mohammed, or being told that they have to accept Christ as their personal savior or they’re going to hell. And I would not support the public schools trying to make your kids Orthodox. Why in the world would any religious person want compulsory public school prayer? As for nondenominational ceremonial deism, if it’s not what you believe, it’s heresy, and no thanks to that either.

Rod, another question: If, as you imply in this post, you really do regret the culture war, what does that say about McCain, he who is so willing to pull that not-so-tired play out of the Republican playbook?

I advocate looking at the issues. Demagoguery is an ugly thing, whether it’s used by the left or the right, and it is definitely used by both. I don’t want to be manipulated, and neither do any of you.

Let us crucify our passions.

Political Atheist, I've really been enjoying your posts lately. So keep up the good work. Also you have a great name, I wish I thought of it.

He may have solidified his base, but he lost Independents (especially Hillary female voters) in the process.

According to the latest Gallup track (through Sunday night) McCain-Palin has just surged ahead 54-44% among likely voters. An 18 point swing in one week.

Who knew the conservative base was that large?

Both McCain and Palin have strong favorable ratings among all groups except partisan Democrats.

It has been thoroughly depressing to wade through to the end of this thread. I just want to share with the group the most recent book I have been reading: "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton. It's an account of the events, political and cultural, that eventuated in the Civil War. Y'all ought to read it. Because most of you sound all too similar to the fire eaters on both sides in 1860. Think, people! We have to share this land with each other. Calling our opponents stupid or evil does nothing to move actual consideration of issues forward, but only inflames passions. (And JimN, liberals have passions, too, just as worthy of crucifixion as those of the RR you so evidently despise. You paint with way too broad a brush, brother. I can visit my parish on any given Sunday and point out numerous merciful and compassionate and generous conservatives, just as it's not difficult to point to grasping and selfish and vindictive liberals. It's called being fallen in a fallen world, and none of us are exempt.) This election will be over in two months, and no matter who wins, we will all have to work and live together. But if we cannot quit the name-calling and the unbridled contempt I sense from partisans on both sides, "The Coming Fury" may prove to be sickeningly relevant to the second decade of the 21st Century. (Sig, I'm sorry to hear of your friend's trouble. I'll remember her when I'm next in the icon corner.) May God have mercy on us all.

Scott Walker, I'm not surprised at the similarity in the rhetoric of the abortion and slavery debates. Both revolve around the same basic moral question: Who is a human being and what, if any, rights does he have? The only possible excuse for support of abortion on demand is a denial of the humanity of a fetus. To accept the humanity of a fetus and support abortion on demand requires either a degree of hypocrisy that borders on sociopathy or a complete suspension of logical thought.

There are those on the left who oppose the execution of even the most vile serial killer and support with equal fervor the abortion of a fetus for the heinous crime of being inconvenient to it's mother. You cannot hold both positions without denying the humanity of the fetus.

Pro-abortionists correctly point out that if abortion is outlawed, desperate women will simply go to back-alley quacks. If we want women to bear their unborn children, we need to provide them with the emotional, and yes, financial, support that shows them that an inconvenient pregnancy is not the end of the world. The supportive response pro-life Republicans have given to the Palin family ought to be our model for how we treat any unwed mother-to-be. This may put us in conflict with other Republican factions, and we may need to work with Democrats on occasion. But if we're serious about reducing the number of abortions, we need to do it.

Also, providing acceptable alternatives to abortion will, over time, reduce the "threat" that restrictions or bans on abortion pose to women. There undoubtedly are many women who don't like the idea of abortion, but fear that they might need an abortion someday. If society can say to the unwed mother, "It's not the end of the world, we'll help you bear and raise the child. And if you can't or don't want to raise it yourself, we'll find someone who will raise it.", there won't be nearly as much demand for abortions. The less women feel they "need" access to abortion, the fewer objections they will have to restrictions on abortion.

It took a civil war to resolve the question of slavery. If we wish to avoid a civil war over abortion, we need to make life a more palatable "choice".

Scott and Carey, I appreciate your comments. I, too, don't conclude that my personally conservative values should necessarily translate into a political agenda.

I agree with your thinking on abortion. My belief on abortion is that, the only reasonable goal being to reduce their number as much as possible, legislation can't be the only answer. It seems like it will also take individual action as well as government programs to provide support for carrying babies to term and adopting them out. At the risk of repeating what may have already been discussed on these pages, the Democrats for Life organization has some interesting ideas.

Carey: "we need to make life a more palatable choice."

Wow, that speaks volumes, doesn't it? Too bad our culture doesn't already understand that life is essential, not just a more or less palatable choice. My own feeling, and I believe that reasonable Christians can disagree about this, is that if our economics and politics were more respectful of life, that might help set the tone for the culture.